People v. Neal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Neal

200 A.D.2d 773, 608 N.Y.S.2d 861

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 31, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 773 (People v. Neal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Neal, 200 A.D.2d 773, 608 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered April 2, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (six counts) and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the prosecutor’s remarks during her summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks were fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105), fair response to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151), or harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

We find that the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered April 2, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (six counts) and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the prosecutor’s remarks during her summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks were fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105), fair response to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151), or harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

We find that the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 773, 608 N.Y.S.2d 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-neal-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack